LAWS(P&H)-2009-2-265

BALBIR KAUR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHER

Decided On February 27, 2009
BALBIR KAUR Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant by filing this Letters Patent Appeal has laid challenge to the judgment, passed by the learned Single Bench on August 1, 2008, vide which Civil Writ Petition No. 10720 of 2002, filed by respondent No. 2, was partly allowed. By that order the award dated November 9, 2001, passed by respondent No. 1 setting aside retrenchment and ordering re- instatement of the appellant in service with 50% back wages was partially modified. The appellant in lieu of re-instatement was held entitled to get compensation of Rs. 35,000/-.

(2.) It is contention of counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Bench was not justified in declining relief of re-instatement in service to the appellant. To support his contention, he stated that the service of the appellant was terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act), as such, appellant's termination was not justified. Once it was so, re-instatement in service was the natural consequence, as was ordered by respondent No. 1. The learned Single Bench has erred in upsetting the order of re-instatement, passed in favour of the appellant. In the alternative, he argued that amount of compensation awarded, in lieu of re-instatement, was on the lower side. He prayed that this appeal be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and order dated November 9, 2001, passed by respondent No. 1, be restored.

(3.) As per admitted facts on record, appellant joined service as Clerk, on contract basis, with respondent No. 2 on February 10, 1995, against a fixed monthly salary. Her service was terminated on August 1, 1997. It is also not disputed before us that when terminating the service of the appellant, neither retrenchment notice was served nor retrenchment compensation was paid to her.